Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/1

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Many sentences/paragraphs tagged for improvement, while numerous statistics are not cited, failing GA criterion 2b, along with concerns over stability (see recent edit-warring). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The article contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't usually comment on GA reassessments, but I'll chime in to say that "Aircraft on display" or "Surviving aircraft" are a standard section on aircraft articles, especially for military aircraft. - ZLEA  T \ C 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would usually agree, but a section containing 83 aircraft (1.8% of all of these planes built) seems a bit unnecessary. And this is a plane which is still being not only flown, but built. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What type of sourcing can be used for those sections? At the moment, it seems to be primarily sourced to F-16.net, which shows up as red in my source-checking script (generally unreliable). To note here User:Mark83 has indicated at talk that they may work on the article :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I have said I may pitch in, but I am not bothered about this section to be honest. I agree it feels a bit like trivia. ZLEA is right that it’s a standard section, but if user(s) have strong feelings about maintaining this section then they need to work on verifability. Failing that, let’s remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If no opposition makes itself known, I'll remove the sectionin a couple of days. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Section removed by . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)